The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[snailslime]

I am pointing out an inconsistency in the "pro-choice" stance. Obviously, I believe fathers are obligated to support their children. I also happen to believe mothers are obligated not to kill them. When it comes to those who consider themselves "pro-choice," though, what they actually mean is that they only favor the choice of the woman when it comes to parenthood. If a woman lies about or uses contraception irresponsibly, for instance, and the man feels that he is not ready for a child yet? Too bad, it's still her choice and hers alone, because male agency does not matter to these people.

People would favor the choices of men if men were the ones who had to deal with pregnancy.

So you are not. What a shocker. At least you are not the type of (((Christian))) who claims to be one while endorsing practices like abortion.

Classy. Are you afraid that someone with more knowledge of the Bible than you will tell you a fact that is contrary to what your priest wants you to believe?

I still find it hilarious that you hate Jews while following a sect of an old Jewish cult and worshipping a Jew.

Anti-abortion sentiment stems primarily from the belief that a fetus is a child. Religion is entirely incidental to this primary belief. It doesn't matter how hard you try to drag religion into the issue; the fact will always remain that even atheists believe killing children is wrong in effectively all cases.

Why don't you address any of the Bible quotes we posted if your religion is so against abortion?

And there are many, many Christians (or people who claim to be """Christians,""" at least) today who condone gay marriage. They are also wrong and I don't value their viewpoints any more than I would yours.

Why? Let me guess, one (mistranslated) line from the Torah, which you should hate because you hate Jews?

No one I am arguing with is going to change their minds on account of anything I post in this thread, no matter how nasty or how nice, no matter how articulate or how lazy. Including you.

Because everything you post is frankly very stupid and you keep refusing to address every argument that proves you wrong.

 

[Lord Edge of Leetworth]

Is @gang weeder still going round in circles? I can't bear reading through the nonsense.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

1) Appeal to emotion, again. Look up the definition of "parasite" and tell me it doesn't sound like what a fetus does.

Facts don't care about your feelings, again. At no stage is a human life scientifically classified as a parasite. Stay triggered and ignorant.

2) How am I supposed to know if a hospital near me performs voluntary euthanasia?

Ask?

3) A fetus isn't innocent because it isn't alive.

It is factually alive as I proved, regardless of your insistence to the contrary. Feel free to clog your ears and scream.

4) Lol, if you're going to go on a huge spiel about biology and its definition of life, then share some sources already. But no, somehow me asking for a scientific perspective is wrong.

Huge spiel? We're discussing simple shit. Didn't you go to middle school? I already provided the definition you requested and elaborated on it. If you find fault there, specifically point out what and why instead of crying to cite a biologist. As you've not done so, I'll assume you have found no fault.

Do you agree with Ketanji that only a biologist can define a woman?

5) The species of a human fetus is human but it's not a human being.

Oh, but I thought it wasn't alive, so how can it be true that "the species of a human fetus is human"? How does it have an identifiable species if it isn't even life?

Cite a biologist, no way is a human's unborn offspring ALSO human! How preposterous!

Unnecessarily killing humans at any stage of life is wrong, hinging your argument on nonsense semantical bullshit should show you just how weak your position is.

6) I mean, a lot of women would agree that their fetuses are worth less than a goldfish or else they wouldn't be getting abortions. Am I an evil murderer for having periods lol?

Yes, because lot of women are either evil or ignorant, so what? You're still just in a death cult.

I didn't know women had their periods on purpose, maybe I'm the one who doesn't know basic biology after all.

Not like you're actually interested in what real women say when they voice their opinions, anyway.

You're half right, I don't care what women nor men have to say on the matter because abortion is wrong, and nobody has ever put forth a good argument for women to be able to have abortions for any or no reason (or at any point, as many argue for).

You, however, only pretend to care about what women say, even though conservative women are against it. You just care about your death cult, not women's opinions, because you'll side with a male feminist over a pro-life female.

7) Who gave you the authority to decide that animals are less important than humans?

Who says I need authority granted to me to state the obvious? And what makes them equally important to humans?

And thanks for proving my point that your bullshit semantical attempt to differentiate between "humans" and "human beings" was done in bad faith, as here you are saying "humans" (not "human beings"), including fetuses by your own admission, are equally important as animals. And you're granting value to animals, so I guess you grant value to fetuses now.

A newly conceived fetus is literally just as big as a grain of rice and has the same value as a blade of grass. You don't even know if the woman's body will decide to keep it. Why do you think we wait to announce our pregnancies?

" A newborn baby is literally just as big as a sub sandwich and has the same value as a blade of grass."

Size dictates value, gotcha. Guess the most valuable person on Earth was the 1,000 pound man. Truly a demigod, he was, and I'm just glad he blessed us with his presence. After all, he was the size of a small truck and so therefore certainly worth more than a blade of grass.

9) You don't need to kill animals to survive anymore, you can get all the necessary vitamins from supplements or other sources. We do still need plants though. It's a necessary evil, but again, I'm pro-choice and not unconditionally pro-life.

So you're saying morality is dependent upon our needs, and it's okay to do whatever we need to do until it's no longer necessary, then it's suddenly immoral?

So if we deem it necessary to bring back slave labor again at any point it'll be okay, or if the population falls off a cliff we can forcibly impregnate women to repopulate?

I'm also pro-life and not unconditionally pro-life if we're including eating a stalk of celery into the equation. Not sure why you went down this path to begin with as I never claimed to be.

10) Define pro-life then. I never saw you say "pro-human-life" just pro-life. Start calling yourself the former if you only care about humans.

Would you assume someone who says they are "pro-meat" in a thread debating the morality of animal consumption includes human meat in their stance?

Aww, we hurt your poor fee-fees. Cry about it.

I am crying, since I'm laughing so hard. You guys are retarded in the most literal sense.

 

[Lord Edge of Leetworth]

Okay. I see everyone likes going in circles. Let's break the pattern. @gang weeder suppose I am a gay Adolf Hitler. Suppose as well that @snailslime has time travelled and decided to assassinate me by stressing my mother through endless debates, while I am still a foetus. How do you respond to this hypothetical scenario? Is she morally justified?

 

[snailslime]

@SSj_Ness

1) A fetus is by all definitions closer to a parasite than it is to a grown adult, child or infant.

2) Fetuses aren't alive no matter how much you claim they are.

3) Post sources if you're going to claim that biology considers a fetus a living thing.

4) Dumb question, you can prove that human corpses are human and that human fossils belonged to humans. Something doesn't have to be alive for its species to be identifiable.

Fetuses aren't able to be killed because they're not alive yet.

5) You'd be singing a different tune if you were a woman, I almost guarantee you that.

6) All the women in this thread support abortion, tell me more about how we don't know what's good for us?

7) You still haven't given me a good reason as to why I should value a fetus over my dog.

Fetuses that small aren't alive. That was my very obvious point.

9 ) I don't support slave labor or anything that could be avoided. You are extremely dumb if you try to equate abortion with hurting an adult human.

10) False equivalent. Some people consider fish meat and others don't.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

1) A fetus is by all definitions closer to a parasite than it is to a grown adult, child or infant.

I'm sorry, I thought you were interested in the science.

2) Fetuses aren't alive no matter how much you claim they are.

You already admitted they were lmao you just can't keep your bullshit straight.

3) Post sources if you're going to claim that biology considers a fetus a living thing.

Maybe I'll play your game if you can first find fault with the definition I provided which you asked for.

4) Dumb question, you can prove that human corpses are human and that human fossils belonged to humans. Something doesn't have to be alive for its species to be identifiable.

For a human corpse to be what it is then it must have been a human which was alive. What you're talking about is impossible, like finding a human corpse which was never alive lmfaooo

Fetuses aren't able to be killed because they're not alive yet.

They are, otherwise what are you aborting? Yes, a clump of cells (which we also are), I know--said clump constitutes life, as I proved, and which you've found no specific fault with, and instead are crying for a biologist to be cited for middle school level knowledge and ignoring that I provided the definition you asked for.

5) You'd be singing a different tune if you were a woman, I almost guarantee you that.

I now identify as a woman, actually, and I'm singing the same tune, so what do you say to that, bigot?

6) All the women in this thread support abortion, tell me more about how we don't know what's good for us?

It's not about what's good for you, selfish as hell lol

And honestly, it probably would be good for you to become mothers. You'd be less spiteful and angry, maybe value human life more.

7) You still haven't given me a good reason as to why I should value a fetus over my dog.

You don't have to. I don't care about how you feel, only that you acknowledge facts. Denying a fetus is life, that's retarded.

Fetuses that small aren't alive. That was my very obvious point.

They are, your point is wrong. And if size doesn't matter why'd you bring it up? Are you implying an amoeba isn't life?

9 ) I don't support slave labor or anything that could be avoided. You are extremely dumb if you try to equate abortion with hurting an adult human.

You support necessary evils, so what if things you don't like are deemed necessary? Then they're okay? You said we don't need to eat meat anymore, which means before it was okay since it was necessary.

10) False equivalent. Some people consider fish meat and others don't.

Not a false equivalence, explain how. As for fish, they're certainly meat regardless of how anyone feels about it.

 

[snailslime]

@SSj_Ness

1) I am interested in the science. Are you?

2) I never admitted anything.

3) The only thing I care about is a source and not your words.

4) What's your point? Are miscarriages murder? A human doesn't have to be alive for the body to be identified as human.

5) A freshly conceived fetus by all definitions isn't alive.

6) You are not a biological female.

7) We're not spiteful and angry. We just don't like scrotes who try to control our bodies.

Who said we wouldn't like to be mothers?

8 ) How is it retarded to deny that a fetus is alive? It's not, until about 22 weeks.

9) Amoeba germs probably aren't sentient.

10) All dead mammals could be considered meat.

 

[Lord Edge of Leetworth]

@BelUwUga I am become pro-lifer, debater of words. There is no way you can dissuade me from thinking that life begins at conception; no way you can appeal to my empathy by offering some wanton woman's perspective; no data with which to assuage my intellectual vanity. This is the moment of truth kiddo. Let's discuss this 'till the thread aborts itself.

 

[BelUwUga]

@BelUwUga I am become pro-lifer, debater of worlds. There is no way you can dissuade me from thinking that life begins at conception; no way you can appeal to my empathy by offering some wanton woman's perspective; no data with which to assuage my intellectual vanity. This is the moment of truth kiddo. Let's discuss this 'till the thread aborts itself.

I think you misunderstand my position. I am 100% pro-baby-killing, I just do not trust women with the responsibility of making the right call. It's the man's heir, he should make the call.

 

[Lord Edge of Leetworth]

I think you misunderstand my position. I am 100% pro-baby-killing, I just do not trust women with the responsibility of making the right call. It's the man's heir, he should make the call.

I am sorry for misconstruing your stance and shall endeavour myself to adjust accordingly. I am a staunch advocate of women's rights (with the exception of @snailslime who should be bred off this website.) What makes you assume that only the male ought to make that call? Can't the child be a woman's heiress as well?

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

1) I am interested in the science. Are you?

Let's test that. Is a human, at any stage of life, a parasite?

2) I never admitted anything.

Don't go deleting or editing your posts, that way others can see for themselves.

3) The only thing I care about is a source and not your words.

Why'd you ask for a definition and then ignore Britannica? Do you find fault with the definition? Do you disagree with anything I said following that? Why can't you specifically point out what you disagree with or find an error in?

Why are you dodging questions? If you want a biologist to be cited for what constitutes life, do you agree that you need a biologist for what constitutes a woman? Don't dodge it or say it's unrelated because it's directly related to establishing your scientific standards in this debate.

4) What's your point? Are miscarriages murder? A human doesn't have to be alive for the body to be identified as human.

Maybe you really do need me to cite a lawyer, because you clearly won't accept that murder has a specific meaning and that you're applying it incorrectly.

How can a human exist without having been alive...? Cite a biologist for your answer because that's definitely something they didn't teach in middle school, unlike what constitutes life or what a woman is.

5) A freshly conceived fetus by all definitions isn't alive.

So you're dismissing the credible definition I provided and my explanation for why you are wrong, but without a reason. Understood, you're essentially conceding the point, then.

6) You are not a biological female.

That's just your transphobia, bigot.

7) We're not spiteful and angry. We just don't like scrotes who try to control our bodies.

Nobody has expressed any interest in controlling your body whatsoever. Your offspring is a distinct entity with it's own unique DNA, wholly separate from you as your only function is in sustaining its life which there is a 99% chance you willfully conceived. We merely want to prevent you from killing it.

Who said we wouldn't like to be mothers?

You're certainly not the image of nmotherliness.

8 ) How is it retarded to deny that a fetus is alive? It's not, until about 22 weeks.

Strange, considering a 21 week old baby fetus survived. How can something not alive for another week survive since it isn't alive to begin with according to you? And what magically occurs at 22 weeks which takes something which is not alive and makes it alive?

9) Amoeba germs probably aren't sentient.

We were discussing life, not sentience, which is why you brought plants into the equation earlier. Are you now shifting from saying a fetus is "not alive" to it is "not sentient"?

10) All dead mammals could be considered meat.

Sure, I agree, but answer my question. I noticed you have difficulty doing so...

 

[BelUwUga]

(with the exception of @snailslime who should be bred off this website.)

Working on it.

What makes you assume that only the male ought to make that call?

I mean I would assume you want the more intelligent, logical partner to be making decisions. As a matter of pragmatics, society's problems largely stem from children without fathers, not children without mothers. Hormones are one hell of a drug and it takes a real broken thot not to love her children. Conversely if dad's going to "leave for smokes" before the baby is crowning, we need to head that societal dead weight off at the pass. The principle of fathers recognizing their children as legitimate has been practiced since time immemorial. A hormonal and emotional women is never going to choose society over her feelings.

Can't the child be a woman's heiress as well?

While I am not so much a fan of dowry in strict terms, I am enough of a believer in marital property that inheritance is naturally decided by the patriarch. This are vast powers but come with the heavy burden of responsibility. It's not easy, but such is man's cross to bare.

 

[Lord Edge of Leetworth]

I mean I would assume you want the more intelligent, logical partner to be making decisions. As a matter of pragmatics, society's problems largely stem from children without fathers, not children without mothers. Hormones are one hell of a drug and it takes a real broken thot not to love her children. Conversely if dad's going to "leave for smokes" before the baby is crowning, we need to head that societal dead weight off at the pass. The principle of fathers recognizing their children as legitimate has been practiced since time immemorial. A hormonal and emotional women is never going to choose society over her feelings.

Ideally I would wish for the innately superior specimen to be endeavoured with deciding on whether to bear children or not. That and making decisions which influence these children's life outcomes. In practice, I regretfully can't find many such specimens of either sexes. Whenever I do find couples with such stark differences it's difficult to assess whether these differences are innate, or that the two have been conditioned into by societal pressures. Therefore I opine that the simplest, most pragmatic outcome should rest with the woman's choice because she's far more affected by the pregnancy than the male.

While I am not so much a fan of dowry in strict terms, I am enough of a believer in marital property that inheritance is naturally decided by the patriarch. This are vast powers but come with the heavy burden of responsibility. It's not easy, but such is man's cross to bare.

If possible please elaborate on this matter.

 

[BelUwUga]

Ideally I would wish for the innately superior specimen to be endeavoured with deciding on whether to bear children or not. That and making decisions which influence these children's life outcomes. In practice, I regretfully can't find many such specimens of either sexes. Whenever I do find couples with such stark differences it's difficult to assess whether these differences are innate, or that the two have been conditioned into by societal pressures. Therefore I opine that the simplest, most pragmatic outcome should rest with the woman's choice because she's far more affected by the pregnancy than the male.


If possible please elaborate on this matter.

Unfortunately I simply cannot trust women on principle. To deny the evidence I have would be positively female-level irrationality. As far as marital property: assuming a couple marries, all of their property is under one "house" headed up by the paterfamilias. This is usually the patriarch. While they have the power of distributing said property/inheritance, they also bare the responsibility of prudently doing so. The first born son cannot be made rich while the younger is destitute. You cannot have your daughter married off without "her" own assets to bring into the marital home (e: gotta buy a good mans, this is why I compare it to dowry). In the event of divorce the courts may assess a split, but unless and until then it should be centrally managed.

 

[Lord Edge of Leetworth]

Unfortunately I simply cannot trust women on principle. To deny the evidence I have would be positively female-level irrationality.

What manner of principle forbids you from trusting people as individuals? From where I stand both sexes are largely comprised of dubious filth. You are needlessly blinding yourself to opportunities by excluding people from trust based solely on their sex or gender. A kind of irrationality, if you will.

As far as marital property: assuming a couple marries, all of their property is under one "house" headed up by the paterfamilias. This is usually the patriarch. While they have the power of distributing said property/inheritance, they also bare the responsibility of prudently doing so. The first born son cannot be made rich while the younger is destitute. You cannot have your daughter married off without "her" own assets to bring into the marital home (e: gotta buy a good mans, this is why I compare it to dowry). In the event of divorce the courts may assess a split, but unless and until then it should be centrally managed.

We have countless cases of materfamilias even under ostensibly patriarchal societies. Perhaps I could have agreed with you in principle if the present-day society was a theocracy. But it isn't. There's many variables here, both within families and between the sexes. And that's not even accounting the ethical dimension of such a "dowry." Viewed thus I cannot in good faith reduce reproduction to marital property. And I still maintain that the best option is to entrust the matter to women. Because they bear the brunt of pregnancy.

 

[BelUwUga]

What manner of principle forbids you from trusting people as individuals? From where I stand both sexes are largely comprised of dubious filth. You are needlessly blinding yourself to opportunities by excluding people from trust based solely on their sex or gender. A kind of irrationality, if you will.

I more mean if we're speaking towards generalities I'm going to assume everyone is a sped but a male is less likely on average to be exceptional. Individuals can and do prove me wrong, earning my respect, trust, and admiration (see: @snailslime ). That said if we're talking about policy it's better to take a pessimistic view. The problem is by shutting the man out of the decision we accept an almost guarantee of an irrational actor making the decision. Pregnancy brain is real. If the decision lies with a man, the woman can still make her appeals to emotion and with enough effort it'd probably work. It's a check and balance.

We have countless cases of materfamilias even under ostensibly patriarchal societies. Perhaps I could have agreed with you in principle if the present-day society was a theocracy. But it isn't. There's many variables here, both within families and between the sexes. And that's not even accounting the ethical dimension of such a "dowry." Viewed thus I cannot in good faith reduce reproduction to marital property. And I still maintain that the best option is to entrust the matter to women. Because they bear the brunt of pregnancy.

This is more my opinion on home economics and how I personally feel a family should be run. If this was the most Holy Thocracy of BelUwUga I guess it'd be policy but even then I understand it's best to leave spouses to the arrangements they mutually agree to. While certainly effected by reproductive decisions I would think of them as independent factors. Also, while the paterfamilias may decide on bulk allocation, the matriarch is largely in charge of day-to-day expenditures. Similar to how congress sets a budget and the executive spends it. I'm not looking to make someone unequal, I want a partnership that plays to our complementary strengths.

 

[Lord Edge of Leetworth]

I more mean if we're speaking towards generalities I'm going to assume everyone is a sped but a male is less likely on average to be exceptional. Individuals can and do prove me wrong, earning my respect, trust, and admiration (see: @snailslime ). That said if we're talking about policy it's better to take a pessimistic view. The problem is by shutting the man out of the decision we accept an almost guarantee of an irrational actor making the decision. Pregnancy brain is real. If the decision lies with a man, the woman can still make her appeals to emotion and with enough effort it'd probably work. It's a check and balance.

What are your assumptions based on? Gut feelings, personal experience, or perhaps some kind of information that I'm not privy to? I'm acquainted with the premise of "pregnancy brain" and know that many women claim to have it, but I haven't seen any research corroborating its existence. Honestly I think you're too influenced by social norms and stereotypes. Most men are useless emotional wrecks by their mid 20s.

This is more my opinion on home economics and how I personally feel a family should be run. If this was the most Holy Thocracy of BelUwUga I guess it'd be policy but even then I understand it's best to leave spouses to the arrangements they mutually agree to. While certainly effected by reproductive decisions I would think of them as independent factors. Also, while the paterfamilias may decide on bulk allocation, the matriarch is largely in charge of day-to-day expenditures. Similar to how congress sets a budget and the executive spends it. I'm not looking to make someone unequal, I want a partnership that plays to our complementary strengths.

But these strengths are presumed to be innate when I've seen nothing to support them or point to the contrary. I can't base a policy on that. I fear the Most Holy Theocracy of BelUwUga may be cursed by Gang Weeder's idiocracy.

 

[snailslime]

Let's test that. Is a human, at any stage of life, a parasite?

A fetus is.

Don't go deleting or editing your posts, that way others can see for themselves.

I don't, lol.

Why'd you ask for a definition and then ignore Britannica? Do you find fault with the definition? Do you disagree with anything I said following that? Why can't you specifically point out what you disagree with or find an error in?

Quote the Britannica.

Why are you dodging questions? If you want a biologist to be cited for what constitutes life, do you agree that you need a biologist for what constitutes a woman? Don't dodge it or say it's unrelated because it's directly related to establishing your scientific standards in this debate.

One has nothing to do with the other, but sure. Link me some citations.

Maybe you really do need me to cite a lawyer, because you clearly won't accept that murder has a specific meaning and that you're applying it incorrectly.

How am I applying it incorrectly?

How can a human exist without having been alive...? Cite a biologist for your answer because that's definitely something they didn't teach in middle school, unlike what constitutes life or what a woman is.

Because they approximately gain sentience at 22 weeks.

So you're dismissing the credible definition I provided and my explanation for why you are wrong, but without a reason. Understood, you're essentially conceding the point, then.

You provided nothing.

That's just your transphobia, bigot.

To be fair I'm sure there are trans people who we all haven't detected but I'm talking 99% of mtfs.

Nobody has expressed any interest in controlling your body whatsoever. Your offspring is a distinct entity with it's own unique DNA, wholly separate from you as your only function is in sustaining its life which there is a 99% chance you willfully conceived. We merely want to prevent you from killing it.

It's not alive when it's freshly conceived, and 99% is a joke statistic.

You're certainly not the image of nmotherliness.

lol okay

Strange, considering a 21 week old baby fetus survived. How can something not alive for another week survive since it isn't alive to begin with according to you? And what magically occurs at 22 weeks which takes something which is not alive and makes it alive?

I said approximately 22 weeks.

We were discussing life, not sentience, which is why you brought plants into the equation earlier. Are you now shifting from saying a fetus is "not alive" to it is "not sentient"?

Well, both.

Sure, I agree, but answer my question. I noticed you have difficulty doing so...

About meat being ethical? I don't believe in killing sentient creatures.

 

[BelUwUga]

What are your assumptions based on? Gut feelings, personal experience, or perhaps some kind of information that I'm not privy to? I'm acquainted with the premise of "pregnancy brain" and know that many women claim to have it, but I haven't seen any research corroborating its existence. In all honesty I think you're too influenced social norms and stereotypes. Most men are useless emotional wrecks by their mid 20s.

If I'll stick to kayfabe: it's most easily proven with psychiatric disorders like PPD that have lead to outright psychosis and homicidal behavior in many cases. If you consider the fact that it's largely posited to be the hormones that get an otherwise sane woman to that destination, it's self-evident that somewhere along the way rationality is lost. There must be an objective check on a decision with such gravity.

Further I would say your argument about young men is equally as specious if we're going to pilpul like rabbis. That notwithstanding, it is a simple matter of biology that will stop the vast majority of such men from unilaterally reproducing. In fact, it would necessitate an equally irrational female participant. QED.

But these strengths are presumed to be innate when I've seen nothing to support it or to point to the contrary. I fear the Most Holy Theocracy of BelUwUga may be cursed by Gang Weeder's idiocracy.

Seeing that women can be strong and can be intelligent is anecdotal to me and based on my own experiences.* Also means I need to work to make myself worthy and also be open minded enough to compromise with someone like that. Knowing that's out there means that for my own self interest I would hold out to marry someone like that and start a family. Believe me I am very aware this isn't the average woman or even a minority of the population. I would rather live alone than suffer the metaphorical death of a bad marriage. If God's plan for me means a family, it will happen in due course.
edit: *Also as a self-interested party, it is not in my interest to try and convince those that disagree with me.

 

[Lord Edge of Leetworth]

If I'll stick to kayfabe: it's most easily proven with psychiatric disorders like PPD that have lead to outright psychosis and homicidal behavior in many cases. If you consider the fact that it's largely posited to be the hormones that get an otherwise sane woman to that destination, it's self-evident that somewhere along the way rationality is lost. There must be an objective check on a decision with such gravity.

Further I would say your argument about young men is equally as specious if we're going to pilpul like rabbis. That notwithstanding, it is a simple matter of biology that will stop the vast majority of such men from unilaterally reproducing. In fact, it would necessitate an equally irrational female participant. QED.

PPD are by and large exceptions, not the rule. Moreover they aren't limited to hormones as some would claim. Besides which the fathers of the children are too not immune to depression. If we truly require the most objective check then it would likely not fall to the mother or the father but a neutral third party, be it family members or council.

And of course it's specious! It's not meant to be taken any more seriously than my diatribes against God's chosen.

Seeing that women can be strong and can be intelligent is anecdotal to me and based on my own experiences. Also means I need to work to make myself worthy and also be open minded enough to compromise with someone like that. Knowing that's out there means that for my own self interest I would hold out to marry someone like that and start a family. Believe me I am very aware this isn't the average woman or even a minority of the population. I would rather live alone than suffer the metaphorical death of a bad marriage. If God's plan for me means a family, it will happen in due course.

Sounds like a high-risk high-reward gamble. Hope it pays off.